David Woodhouse writes:

quoted text
> Why? What's so special about the name 'ttyS'?

It's the name that users of Linux expect built-in serial ports to have.

quoted text
> > The built-in ports can generally be enumerated early on boot in a
> > stable order, and they should be assigned the low ttySn numbers,
> > regardless of what chip is used to implement them. 
> 
> I don't see why that 'should' be the case. Certainly it _isn't_ the case
> on most supported platforms -- we have separate device numbers, and
> names, for most types of ports. There's only one or two drivers which
> abuse ttySn for anything other than 8250 ports.

It 'should' be the case because that is what is easiest for users and
makes most sense from a user's point of view.

You still haven't given any reason why a user should have to know or
care whether the built-in serial ports on his/her computer are
implemented with a 16C550 chip or a Z85C30 chip or something else.

Now, *maybe* the naming can be fixed up with udev.  I haven't invested
the week of my life that it would take to investigate the twisty maze
of shell scripts that udev seems to involve.

In any case your patch is a user-visible incompatible API change and
will break existing working setups, so it should only be put in after
suitable warning has been given.  Maybe we need a module parameter to
select between the old and new behaviour to ease the transition.

Paul.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/